DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
DS: Türkiye — Measures Concerning Electric Vehicles and Other Types of Vehicles from China
This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.
See also:
Current status
back to top
Key facts
back to top
Latest document
back to top
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at
Consultations
Complaint by China
On 8 October 2024, China requested consultations with Türkiye with respect to the following measures concerning electric vehicles (EVs) and certain other types of vehicles originating in China: (i) additional duties on the importation of EVs from China; (ii) a requirement of an import permit certificate to import EVs and certain other types of vehicles from China (import permit certificate scheme); (iii) additional duties on the importation of other types of vehicles from China, and an exemption from those duties offered to imports benefiting from the investment incentive certificate under Türkiye's investment incentives program (investment certificate exemption).
China claimed that the challenged measure appears to be inconsistent with:
- Articles I:1, II:1(a), II:1(b); III:4, X:3(a), and XI:1 of the GATT 1994; and
- Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TRIMS Agreement.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
On 16 January 2025, China requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 27 January 2025, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel.
At its meeting on 24 February 2025, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Norway, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States reserved their third-party rights.
On 14 April 2025, China requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 22 April 2025, the Director-General composed the panel, including the Chair of the panel previously agreed by the parties. Following the resignation of the Chairperson on 29 July 2025, and further to a request from China on 30 July 2025, the Director-General on 13 August 2025 appointed a new Chairperson.
On 20 October 2025, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that, due to the complexity of the issues presented in the dispute, the panel expected to issue its final report to the parties by the end of May 2026. The Chair also apprised the DSB that the report would be available to the public once it was circulated to the Members in all three official languages, and that the date of circulation depends on completion of translation.
On 28 July 2026, the panel report was circulated to Members.
Regarding the additional duties, the Panel made the following findings:
- the additional duties on electric vehicles (EVs) were inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, because they exceeded tariff bindings in Türkiye's schedule, and with Article II:1(a), because they accorded less favourable treatment than that provided for in Türkiye's schedule; and
- with respect to the additional duties on the importation of other types of vehicles:
- China had not made a prima facie case that the additional duties on internal combustion engine vehicles were inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994;
- the additional duties on those hybrid vehicles that would have been classified under 34 tariff lines prior to the introduction of HS 2017 (which introduced new subheadings for hybrid vehicles), were inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, because they exceeded tariff bindings in Türkiye's schedule, and with Article II:1(a), because they accorded less favourable treatment than that provided for in Türkiye's schedule; and
- the additional duties on those hybrid vehicles that would not have been classified under the 34 tariff lines prior to the introduction of HS 2017, were not inconsistent with Articles II:1(b) and II:1(a) of the GATT 1994.
The Panel found that the inconsistencies with Article II were not justified either under Article XX(b), because Türkiye had not demonstrated the existence of a risk to human, animal or plant life or health, or under Article XX(g), because Türkiye had not demonstrated that that the additional duties related to the conservation of natural resources.
The Panel also found that the additional duties were inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 insofar as vehicles from Türkiye's Regional Trade Agreements (RTA) partners were exempt from these duties, and thus Türkiye failed to accord to products from China an advantage accorded to the like product originating from its RTA partners. The Panel found that this inconsistency was justified under Article XXIV except for the exemption for vehicles from Venezuela because the FTA between Türkiye and Venezuela excludes several relevant vehicle subheadings from tariff liberalization.
The import permit scheme (IPLS) conditioned the importation of EVs and externally rechargeable hybrid vehicles from countries other than Türkiye's RTA partners upon satisfying simultaneously five after-sales service requirements. The Panel found that each of these requirements, as well as the mechanism of enforcing them through import permits, were inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because they accorded less favourable treatment to vehicles from China than the treatment accorded to the like vehicles from Türkiye.
The Panel found that this inconsistency was not justified under Article XX(d) because Türkiye had not demonstrated that the requirements and the enforcement mechanism were taken "to secure compliance with" Türkiye's laws on consumer protection and type-approval.
Having found a violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 that was not justified, the Panel did not consider it necessary to examine China's other claims concerning the IPLS.
Share
Follow this dispute
Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.